There's very little here, and what little is here is… not too understandable. I can't really grasp anything that's being written.

I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume there's a story going on. The text below the quote box is someone either typing or speaking. So they've been studying the history of the Foundation. This raises multiple questions:

Why are they looking into the history of the Foundation?

Why do they not have much time?

If they're speaking, then there's no indication that's the case. If they're typing, why would anyone after them leave what they wrote?

If it's a secure location, why couldn't they finish typing out "Goodbye." and leave?

Who is this person writing or speaking this for?

Why did this person represent the information they found like this?

Where is this happening?

Who even is this person?

Why is "HISTORY" stylized as "HI*ST*OR*Y**"?

And these are the questions that came up just based on the story. Outside of that, what the heck is all that stuff in the quote box? And why should the audience care if they can't decipher it or even have clues to decipher it? There's also no emotional connection involved at any point. No one reading this is going to care about the person who researched this stuff, or care about the information they found, or both.

Something like this concept could potentially work. I don't think the way it's told here (abstract + vague information and brief first-person perspective) will work, and it's certainly too short to get anything meaningful out of it. Try to keep figuring out what to write and improve on it, as this is not going to work as it is.

This isn't the first, or second, or third time you've reacted in an unnecessarily rude or condescending manner to valid critique. Consider this an Official Warning not to do such in the future, lest disciplinary action follow.

I don't really try to be rude. That's how I actually talk in real life, too. I just answer questions and find ways to incorporate myself knowing that people need certain things explained. I currently have an scp and this tale in re-writing.

Please don't take that as rude. I was just replying, explaining myself.

Personally, once one comes to the point where they need to defend their work, it's usually a good time to review the work to see if it's too cryptic or ambiguous. The answers you provide in the comment thread aren't part of the final product, after all.

Ah yes, "Read it again" definitely explains… absolutely nothing. The added bit about "evolutionary periods" and the number correspondences doesn't seem to actually mean anything, or at least nothing sensible. There is no progress in evolution, and if you rebooted it, you would get something totally different each time. Also in the earliest iterations without complex multicellular animals, who was the Foundation: bacterial scientists?

I don't know either, but Futurism was an artistic movement in the early 20th century and Russia is a country, so, from context, he's probably comparing your draft to a poem in the style of Russian Futurism. Or, just Google it, I guess.

I'd like to weigh in as a fellow new user here. This thread can be summarized by:
"How can I make it better?"
"Do this and this!"
"Why do you hate me? ;-; "

You gotta understand that no one ever said it was bad. Your work is vague and they want more. More info, more specificity, more elaboration. These are hardened vets of the SCP world trying to help you along. Take it or leave it but don't be rude.

This is not a particularly healthy attitude to have when it comes to writing. The critique given here, so far, has been civil and well-meaning, and is not unlike critique given to other authors every day.

In order to prevent this conversation from getting out of hand, I am locking this thread.